https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47690 Rule 8(3) could validly prescribe interest for delayed payment of duty only within the compensatory framework authorised by Section 11AB, which links the charge to the amount and period of default. The words "rupees one thousand per day, whichever is higher" went beyond that power because they imposed a fixed daily levy unrelated to the duty in default and altered interest into a penal burden. Those words were held ultra vires and severed, while the remainder of the rule was sustained. The demand had to be recomputed only on the basis of lawful interest under the parent Act. en-us Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47690 Rule 8(3) could validly prescribe interest for delayed payment of duty only within the compensatory framework authorised by Section 11AB, which links the charge to the amount and period of default. The words "rupees one thousand per day, whichever is higher" went beyond that power because they imposed a fixed daily levy unrelated to the duty in default and altered interest into a penal burden. Those words were held ultra vires and severed, while the remainder of the rule was sustained. The demand had to be recomputed only on the basis of lawful interest under the parent Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47690